​The results of the Island Bay Residents Association's survey on the cycleway continue to be the subject of much confusion so here's a helpful visualisation that puts the results in context.

Let's be clear - there's nothing wrong with the IBRA wanting to find out what people in Island Bay think and there's nothing wrong with running a survey. However, good intentions are no excuse for ignoring the most basic laws of statistical mathematics and it is very wrong to infer the results of a non-random survey to the entire population, especially when it involves self-selection and has a response rate of only 35%. If you did that in an exam it would be marked wrong. If you interpreted survey results for a client that way you would probably lose their business. You might as well try and argue that 2+2=5.

​"No matter how large a sample is, if it’s based on non-random methods, the results will not represent the population that the researcher wants to draw conclusions about"​​Professor Deborah J. Rumsey, Statistics for Dummies, 2nd edition

​Concerns have been raised previously about the IBRA's survey methodology and the way the survey results were presented so it's disappointing to see this mis-representation continuing. Despite the frequent and loud claims that "the Island Bay community doesn't want the cycleway" only 35% of residents eligible to take part in the survey actually did (which is 26% of all residents). To extrapolate the survey finding that 87% of respondents (1,559 people) don't want a kerbside cycleway to the entire population means accepting the ludicrous proposition that there are another 2,878 ((5,100 x 0.87) - 1,559) Island Bay residents who don't want a kerbside cycleway but who didn't do the survey. That would mean nearly twice as many residents opposed to the kerbside cycleway didn't do the survey as actually did, which seems implausible. You can't have it both ways, if the entire community is so angry why such a low response rate?

If the survey results seem to confirm anything it's that the vast majority of people living in Island Bay (65%) don't feel strongly enough about the cycleway to do a survey, or they are truly ambivalent about it i.e. they can see both pros and cons to the cycleway and so consider themselves neutral - something that the survey didn't try to capture. The disengaged are the true 'silent majority' in the cycleway debate. Those of us who are highly engaged in the discussion can't ignore this fact and need to be acutely aware that we are subject to a very high degree of confirmation bias within our own networks. We wrote about this a year ago and it is still completely true now:

"There are two clear lessons here. First, both sides of the debate need to stop making unsubstantiated statements about what they think "the Island Bay community" wants. Second, our city councillors need to keep the feedback that they are receiving from the community in perspective. Just because actively engaged minority groups on both sides are noisy and persistent doesn't justify their views being presented as the view of an entire community. This will be a particularly important lesson for councillors to learn if they are to have any chance of delivering the vision for cycling in the Wellington Cycling Framework without every single project descending into the kind of protracted to-and-fro we have seen in Island Bay"

What is strange is why cycleway opponents even feel the need to mis-represent the survey results in this way, or to continue making generalisations about "the community" as if that is an entirely homogeneous group. These statements are easily refuted and just undermine the credibility of any other arguments put forward. That said, 1,500 unhappy people, or around a third of the population, is still a significant number that can't just be ignored. A very subtle change in the messaging to something like "a significant number of Island Bay residents don't want the cycleway" is still pretty powerful and, more importantly, factually correct. It isn't a majority, however, and in the highly adversarial win/lose, for/against framing of this debate that seems to be the problem.

some good points made here. I am also sick or resident assoc. or those style of groups saying they represent the whole community. Many of these groups are made up of white, retiree age men or woman, protestant, middle class etc. My community is made up of youth, Asians, Maori, gays, poor and uber rich. Not homogeneous at all. And how do people get on these resident groups? Are they voted in by their community or tapped on the shoulder by someone else in the group who says "you should join our group, we have a space."

These resident associations are more like clubs - closed and exclusive. Do they really engage with their communities to gain the views and insights of those they claim to represent?

Am I against these groups - NO. I am all for them - but don't they dare say they represent the views of the community. Sick of hearing it big time. Just be honest and say "we represent a like minded view of our community - we are not the community"

A true group would look at the demographics and population of their area and form a resident assoc. based on that, representing that.

Reply

Alastair

3/6/2016 08:19:10 am

I think IBRA deserve credit for attempting to establish facts; much of the anti-cycleway lobbying has been based on innuendo and generalisations. In practice most surveys are "self selecting" since it's very hard work to get responses from everyone in the population, and 35% isn't a bad return rate for an online survey. As you point out, the real issue is interpretation. It's also quite possible the result reflects the disruption of the cycleway construction, and the adjustment to a changed roading environment. A survey in 6 months time might well have a different result.